We need a FORMAT WAR thread (or twelve)
A couple of days ago I purchased Grieg's Norwegian Dances SACD released on the Swedish label BIS. It was recorded using DSD and contained the following introduction to this new format:
Sounded impressive. Since the CD portion was downsampled I thought it a good way to test the stereo SACD vs CD portion. My testing equipment was a pair of Sony DVP-NS900V players and B&W N805 speakers. I burned a copy of the CD portion of the disc loaded them into the players, synched them up, turned the volume up and switched back and forth. Could not hear a damn difference. I then let the SACD lag around 15 seconds behind the CD inorder to test the "greater resolution" by comparing the decay of instruments and echo. Nope. Could not hear any damn difference there either. I then asked my wife, who is *very* sensitive to high frequencies, to have a listen. She couldn't hear a damn difference either.
And I so much want to experience the joy of this "greater resolution" that they write about. Seems all the big-shots over on the SH forum experience it immediately upon their first introduction to the format.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?
The Direct Stream Digital (DSD) technology used for this recording differs fundamentally from usual systems of translating sound waves into digital impulses. Hitherto, digital audio recordings have always used multi-bit (PCM Pulse Code Modulation) technology. DSD recording is instead a one-bit system, making it possible to take as many as 2.8 million samples per second of the sound being recorded - as compared to the 44,100 samples possible with previous technology. Consequently, the ability to record sounds faithfully increases enormously, as exemplified by the following facts: the frequency response with DSD technology in theory extends to 100,000 Hz, which is five times higher than that allowed by CD technology. The dynamic range on a DSD recording is likewise considerably wider, achieving up to 120 dB across the audible range. This leads to an enhancement in clarity and transparency of sound. The musical instruments and the recorded acoustics acquire an extra dimension in plasticity and realism, unmatched by any other recording technique.
On the present Hybrid SACD there are actually three versions of the same DSD master recording and what you actually hear depends on your disc player, amplifiers and speakers: If you have a CD player you will hear the multi-bit (PCM) CD version, downsampled from the one-bit DSD recording. If you have a stereo SACD player you will be able to listen to both the CD version and also the SACD stereo version with its greater resolution. If you have a multichannel SACD player, with multichannel amplifiers and speakers, you will also be able to enjoy the surround sound version, creating in you listening space an acoustic simulation of the venue where the recording took place.
Sounded impressive. Since the CD portion was downsampled I thought it a good way to test the stereo SACD vs CD portion. My testing equipment was a pair of Sony DVP-NS900V players and B&W N805 speakers. I burned a copy of the CD portion of the disc loaded them into the players, synched them up, turned the volume up and switched back and forth. Could not hear a damn difference. I then let the SACD lag around 15 seconds behind the CD inorder to test the "greater resolution" by comparing the decay of instruments and echo. Nope. Could not hear any damn difference there either. I then asked my wife, who is *very* sensitive to high frequencies, to have a listen. She couldn't hear a damn difference either.
And I so much want to experience the joy of this "greater resolution" that they write about. Seems all the big-shots over on the SH forum experience it immediately upon their first introduction to the format.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH ME?
Thom
-
Mike Hunte
- Senior Troll
- Posts: 293
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2003 4:48 pm
- Location: Bed
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
I could hear some subtle differences with the Dylan stuff. Whether they were due to DSD "improvements" or different mastering or downsampling artifacts or what, I don't know. But I could tell the difference blind.
Thing is, the SACD didn't always sound "better." Just different.
What pre-amp/amp/etc. were you using? Any digital processing in the chain?
Ryan
Thing is, the SACD didn't always sound "better." Just different.
What pre-amp/amp/etc. were you using? Any digital processing in the chain?
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Rspaight wrote:I could hear some subtle differences with the Dylan stuff. Whether they were due to DSD "improvements" or different mastering or downsampling artifacts or what, I don't know. But I could tell the difference blind.
Thing is, the SACD didn't always sound "better." Just different.
What pre-amp/amp/etc. were you using? Any digital processing in the chain?
Ryan
Pre-amp: NAD S100
Amp: NAD S200
I've got the Nashville Skyline, BOTT and Slow Train Coming. I might do similar test on these and check.
When you tested the Dylan stuff, did you sync up two players?
Thom
-
Rspaight
- Posts: 4386
- Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:48 am
- Location: The Reality-Based Community
- Contact:
No, just had my wife bounce back and forth between the layers (or not). I couldn't tell which was the SACD and which was the CD layer, bu I could determine which was "A" and which was "B" pretty consistently. Nashville Skyline was particularly easy to tell -- try that one. The CD layer sounded more "laid-back" than the SACD layer, which I thought was rather odd.
The NAD stuff shouldn't cause any problems. As you probably know, any kind of digital EQ/tone control/bass management/etc will be an issue, since it'll re-PCM the SACD signal and make any distinctions much less apparent. (I found this out the hard way with an old all-digital Sony ES receiver.)
Ryan
The NAD stuff shouldn't cause any problems. As you probably know, any kind of digital EQ/tone control/bass management/etc will be an issue, since it'll re-PCM the SACD signal and make any distinctions much less apparent. (I found this out the hard way with an old all-digital Sony ES receiver.)
Ryan
RQOTW: "I'll make sure that our future is defined not by the letters ACLU, but by the letters USA." -- Mitt Romney
Re: We need a FORMAT WAR thread (or twelve)
Rspaight wrote:From what I've seen, you're not a *real* music forum unless you have at least one active thread at all times containing the same boring arguments pro and con SACD/DVD-A. Often these threads carry titles that sound interesting and informative, but in fact contain one or two posts related to the subject and five pages of bitter bloviating and babbling.
I hate to see FLO fall behind in this important yardstick of forum quality. So let me start us off:
SACD rules. If you like DVD-A, you smell funny and have small genitals.
Ryan
'Bloviating' is a great word, innit?
Anyway, SACD and DVD-A both suck, mono over an Edison wax cylinder rules. Period.
Sounded impressive. Since the CD portion was downsampled I thought it a good way to test the stereo SACD vs CD portion. My testing equipment was a pair of Sony DVP-NS900V players and B&W N805 speakers. I burned a copy of the CD portion of the disc loaded them into the players, synched them up, turned the volume up and switched back and forth. Could not hear a damn difference. I then let the SACD lag around 15 seconds behind the CD inorder to test the "greater resolution" by comparing the decay of instruments and echo. Nope. Could not hear any damn difference there either. I then asked my wife, who is *very* sensitive to high frequencies, to have a listen. She couldn't hear a damn difference either.
And once again, the Nyquist theorem is confirmed! To capture *all* the information of a band-limited signal, sample at *at least* twice the maximum frequency. For human hearing, that's 20 kHz, so 44 kHz does the trick with some kHz to spare.
Makes me feel there is order in the universe.
Does the 'B' in "BIS' stand for bullshit?